Penalize Fat Employees?

[ClydeR]

Congress is seriously considering proposals to provide tax credits or other subsidies to employers who offer wellness programs that meet federal criteria. In addition, lawmakers said they would make it easier for employers to use financial rewards or penalties to promote healthy behavior among employees.

Two Democratic senators working on comprehensive health legislation, Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Tom Harkin of Iowa, have taken the lead in devising such incentives.

More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/health/policy/10health.html)


Critics say that holding people financially responsible for their health behavior is potentially unfair and that employers have no business prying into their employees’ private lives.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a research and advocacy group, said financial rewards and penalties were often a form of lifestyle discrimination. “You are supposed to be paid on the basis of how you do your job, not how often you go to the gym or how many cheeseburgers you eat,” Mr. Maltby said.

I applaud this move, so long as Congress does not impose regulations limiting employers' discretion in giving rewards and imposing penalties. Employer's should be able to charge fat employees more for their health insurance or even to fire fat people. There are way too many fat people around where I live already, and this might motivate some of them to stop being so lazy.

If it works, though, it'll make the Social Security problem even worse.

Being fat today is what smoking was 15 years ago. And look where smokers have come in the last 15 years. It's something the fat readers of this forum should consider.

So says Clyde.

P.S. If you respond negatively to this post, everybody will know you're fat.

[MrTastyHead]

even to fire fat people.

I think they should be able to fire people who feel like it's their place to tell others how to live their lives.

And yes, I'm overweight.

[ElvenFury]

Grind them into Soylent Green. We'll eat for YEARS.

[ElvenFury]

Srsly, would you want to work next to this guy?

2744

[Ysamine]

I'm all for penalizing fat employees as long as we fire stupid employees first without worry of being sued for stepping on their rights. And no, I'm not fat.

[Trouble]

I like the idea but I think you'd have to extend it to smokers and probably even drinkers. We've already done threads on this I think.

[MrTastyHead]

I would have no problem working next to that guy if he can DO HIS JOB.

What is the most important thing for an employee? TO DO THEIR JOB.

If I want to go home at the end of the day and pray to Allah, hit the bong, or stuff a handful of cheeseburgers down my throat, it's my business. You, my neighbor, or my boss should have no say in it.

[diethx]

P.S. If you respond negatively to this post, everybody will know you're fat.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/388345925_503cb1c158_o.jpg

[Tisket]

Grind them into Soylent Green. We'll eat for YEARS.

And it's all natural and fully renewable. Win-win. Well, except for the person you're eating.

Also, I rather suspect Clyde is 350 pounds. Must suck to never see one's own toes.

[Inspire]

My workplace started to charge smokers more for benefits. Overweight people are next I imagine.

[AestheticDeath]

I would say yes to this, if for no other reason, than health care/insurance costs.

I currently have little to no health care or insurance through my company because of fat people. Them and the others with preexisting conditions. Diabetes etc.

When (mostly smaller?) companies are forced to pay super high rates for those employees that have their own conditions, the quality of the health care package the company buys usually suffers. Which means I, and people like me, are getting much less coverage than we could. Super high deductibles that don't even come into play quick enough to help us in a real time of need.

You should be able to charge those people who are overweight, and have pre-existing conditions the extra portion over what a healthy person like myself would cost. Or something.

I know someone is going to be screwed no matter what, but whys it gotta be the ones who take care of themselves?

And yes, I know that plenty of people have conditions they cannot control, but in all, based on the USA today, I would hazard a guess and say there is a vast majority of the workers who are just plain fucking fat, because they do not control their eating habits or exercise regime.


I don't think that you should be able to fire them however, not without meeting a very strict threshold, such that the employee, no matter how well they do their job, actually costs the company too much money to employ.

And honestly I am tired of seeing so many fat people. For any of you who are overweight, can you honestly look in the mirror and say, hey I am gorgeous! Wouldn't you rather see a slimmer version? Wouldn't you like to have a program that rewards you for losing that weight? Having an honest excuse to do something good for yourself, that in the end would make you feel better in many ways and benefit monetarily at the same time? I mean it all comes down to motivation for some people, and for me, if I were obese, I think some $ would be a good motivation to jump on the treadmill.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Penalize Fat Employees? 05-15-2009 04:39 PM Well, aren't you just a shining example of humanity and compassion.

Why yes, yes I am. Thanks. (BTW I think that was an 80 point bump or something crazy. You should be proud of your e-peen.)

[Ignot]

I think this should go for employees who smell real bad. I sat next to a guy who had terrible BO and my productivity dropped because I did not want to be at my desk. I finally got my desk moved but damn. He was also fat.

[Allereli]

bring back the draft, and add it for women, too. I bet people wouldn't be as fat

[Inspire]

I think this should go for employees who smell real bad. I sat next to a guy who had terrible BO and my productivity dropped because I did not want to be at my desk. I finally got my desk moved but damn. He was also fat.

We have a guy at work we call PTG (Pony Tail Guy) who STINKS!!!!!! OMFG he stinks. I don't know if he doesn't wash his clothes, or himself or what but he reeks.

[AestheticDeath]

Hm yeah, we had a guy like that not long ago. Fat, tattooed all over, didn't shower enough. And wore tank tops that had the sleeves split all the way down to his trousers so you could see his fat tits and belly and all that shit. Ew.

God forbid he bends over, cause plumbers butt had nothing on that guy.

[Some Rogue]

And those fucking Indians with their smelly food that makes them stink! Fire them too!


And what about ugly people?!

[AestheticDeath]

Hm, ugly people. Not sure I can agree on that one, I might lose my job then.

[thefarmer]

I would say yes to this, if for no other reason, than health care/insurance costs.

I currently have little to no health care or insurance through my company because of fat people. Them and the others with preexisting conditions. Diabetes etc.

blah blah blah


Isn't the whole point of getting worker provided insurance because it's cheaper? If you cost less money to insure, then go buy your own?

[AestheticDeath]

Maybe you can afford to take money outta yer own pocket to go buy insurance for yourself, but not me.

And in case you meant the company giving me $ to do it on my own, no they won't do it.

[thefarmer]

Maybe you can afford to take money outta yer own pocket to go buy insurance for yourself, but not me.

And in case you meant the company giving me $ to do it on my own, no they won't do it.


So.. why should (insert indian/ugly/fat/homosexual/short) people be penalized?

[Inspire]

So.. why should (insert indian/ugly/fat/homosexual/short) people be penalized?

To put it into terms you can understand.. I think he was saying if you cost more to insure, you should pay more.

[AestheticDeath]

Well, I didn't mention any but the fat, or the other problem childs that actually cause the monetary problems. If they cost more to insure than the average person, why should the company pay it? Or why should the average person suffer in quality because of such high premiums that are based off those other few?

The question isn't why should they be penalized, it is "Why should I be penalized for their conditions"?

edit - BUT, if I had to answer that question on why should they be penalized? It is because they have more need of healthcare for the constant/long term, which means they use more of the coverage, and cost the insurer more money, which gives them less profit, which makes them charge more for those people so they can still hopefully come out ahead with profit. If they don't profit why should they offer insurance at all? And if none of us all of a sudden had no insurance because fat people cost too much to insure, well where does that leave us? Hating fat people.

And I say all that with absolutely no fucking clue if it is right. I know some fat people who seem fairly health in-so-far as I don't see them going to doctors all the time or buying BP medicine etc. I don't know what all conditions obese people have, or are more likely to have. I just know insurance premiums are higher because of that weight, and I am assuming the insurers have statistical data to suggest they need to do such a thing. I would assume the more weight you carry, the higher your blood pressure, and possibly more at risk for diabetes or heart failure etc.

[thefarmer]

Well, I didn't mention any but the fat, or the other problem childs that actually cause the monetary problems. If they cost more to insure than the average person, why should the company pay it? Or why should the average person suffer in quality because of such high premiums that are based off those other few?

The question isn't why should they be penalized, it is "Why should I be penalized for their conditions"?

If the average person costs less, that lesser cost should be reflected in the price they would pay if they got their own insurance. Why don't you buy your own insurance? Because it's cheaper to use your worker provided one. The same principle should apply to the non-average person. They use worker provided insurance because it's cheaper.

[Tisket]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Penalize Fat Employees? 05-15-2009 04:39 PM Well, aren't you just a shining example of humanity and compassion.

Why yes, yes I am. Thanks. (BTW I think that was an 80 point bump or something crazy. You should be proud of your e-peen.)

That was me. Thought I signed it. Bad Tisket! And yes, I like my electronic dick just fine.

[AestheticDeath]

I think you missed the point. It isn't all about the worker. And it is not about purposely trying to infringe upon the rights of the worker who costs more to insure.

Yes, if the world were fair, it would cost the same to give health care to everyone. But it isn't.

So you have company 'Players Corner, Inc.' which is nice enough to try and help the employees out by providing health care at no cost to the worker. Yet with a budget of $100,000 and 100 workers, they have to average $1000 per worker to buy said insurance.

Worker A, is a young adult, 5'6", 150 lbs., no drinking or smoking, no past medical history, no current disease or condition requiring treatment or medication. Worker A is a 'dream' for an insurance company. Worker A costs $800 a year to insure on a level 1, or premium insurance program, which gives the best potential benefits.

Worker B, however, is 50 years old, medically obese at 5'6" and 200 lbs., smokes daily, and drinks occasionally. No current shit etc. Worker B costs, $1200/yr to insure on a lvl 1 plan.

Worker C, is 40 years old, medically class III obese, at 5'4" and 250 lbs., has diabetes as a result, as well as two past heart attacks and who knows what else. Worker C costs $1700 a year for a lvl 1 plan.

Goes on and on etc. And because of workers who cost more to insure, the company either goes above the budget to get quality health care, or they downgrade to a lvl 3 plan to be able to cover every employee equally.

So you have a company which is not providing what they would like to, or suffering unnecessarily high payments because of some individuals who don't take care of themselves.

You have an employee base which doesn't get the best coverage because of certain individuals.

So basically atm tons of people are already being penalized even though they lead a health lifestyle, and take at least moderately good care of themselves.

But when someone suggest that you give worker A some compensation, say $900 bonus because they cost less to insure, or instead they charge workers B and C the overage amount for the costs they incur is wrong?


What happens when one person, one mind you, happens to cause the insurance company to drop a business's plan completely, because of the outrageous amount of money they cost to keep alive? Between being obese, heart conditions, injuries from auto accidents they were in, etc.

(BTW the above happened at one of my jobs, so don't laugh it off. It was more then likely the premium for the insurance just skyrocketed to like 10x the previous cost, but nevertheless the insurance was gone real quick because of one person. And new insurance wasn't attained for over a month, trying to find someone who could give some sort of reasonable rate.)

[AestheticDeath]

That was me. Thought I signed it. Bad Tisket! And yes, I like my electronic dick just fine.

Kinda sad when a girl has a bigger one than me. :(

[AestheticDeath]

But yeah, one more post and I am done trying to make my point today. A business is already being penalized by insurance carriers because they have overweight employees to insure. Why shouldn't the business be able to pass it along to the people who are the cause of that penalty?

[ElanthianSiren]

A business is already being penalized by insurance carriers because they have overweight employees to insure. Why shouldn't the business be able to pass it along to the people who are the cause of that penalty?

If you extend that logic far enough, everyone is an "extra" burden on insurance, especially with the level of screening that can be done presently. Insurance just got in boatloads of trouble for charging women higher premiums for everything (diagnostic testing, prescription coverage, etc), based on this sort of logic. It was fun to watch them squirm though before congress.

Additionally, that sort of logic regarding pre-existing conditions is much of what has caused the general outcry against insurance presently. There's a difference between making up the difference and taking advantage. Insurance companies have demonstrated effectively that they can't make that delineation for themselves, so why should we trust them to with regard to work based plans?

[AestheticDeath]

So change the way insurance works as it obviously has problems, but I still don't think you will ever see people being charged the same prices. Which means someone still gets screwed.

And logically 'everyone' cannot be extra. It has to have a baseline somewhere. A starting cost, or lowest cost.

BTW - I am just giving my 'uniformed, basic stupid' answers. If you disagree with me, why don't you step and argue the topic in the thread instead of simply leaving neg rep and name calling cause you don't like what I say. Maybe you can change my mind and make me see the light. You need to do more than ask me a different question, you need to say what you think and why.

Rep all you want, but grow some balls and argue the topic as well.

edit 2- wtf is 1984 about?

[ElanthianSiren]

So change the way insurance works as it obviously has problems, but I still don't think you will ever see people being charged the same prices. Which means someone still gets screwed.

And logically 'everyone' cannot be extra. It has to have a baseline somewhere. A starting cost, or lowest cost.

BTW - I am just giving my 'uniformed, basic stupid' answers. If you disagree with me, why don't you step and argue the topic in the thread instead of simply leaving neg rep and name calling cause you don't like what I say. Maybe you can change my mind and make me see the light. You need to do more than ask me a different question, you need to say what you think and why.

Rep all you want, but grow some balls and argue the topic as well.

edit 2- wtf is 1984 about?

I agree that insurance should change. And everyone can be an added cost because insurance is basically making a bet you won't get sick. The only person who would never be an added burden to insurance with the increase of medical technology is someone who never got sick and never needed treatment. Somewhere down the line, due to genetics or lifestyle everyone will need treatment.

I didn't neg rep you. I don't think you realize though, perhaps because you have no recognized preexisting conditions, how much liberty insurance companies have taken when it comes to "paying the difference." Additionally, the position that you have staked is one of "we should let them charge extra," which is a slippery slope when dealing with companies who have already displayed unscrupulous behavior in the past with these same matters.

[Latrinsorm]

Why shouldn't the business be able to pass it along to the people who are the cause of that penalty?McDonald's?

Non-snide version:

1. Medicine does not offer a way to quantitatively and accurately rank someone's health. For example: my BMI is good, I've got great blood pressure and cholesterol, can run a mile in 7 minutes, can hit line drives all day, and my insurance company spends way more on me than the average fellow.

2. No science offers a way to quantitatively and accurately assign blame. Am I skinny because I'm such a great guy, or because I'm so modest? Or because my parents were both skinny back in the day? Or because I'm a picky eater? If nothing I've done "warrants" being skinny, can there be a way that everyone who is "fat" is directly and solely to blame for their condition?

3. Of course not... we can all agree that there are cases where being deemed a higher insurance risk cannot be reasonably blamed on the person in question. How could we shoehorn this common-sense agreement into the law? Does such a question even make sense - can the law be made subject and subordinate to what we all know is right? If not, how many innocent people are we comfortable sending to prison? (Or, in this case, fining.)

[Back]

I’d rather penalize stupid, non-productive, no-initiative-taking, coasters than the fat person who busts their ass, knows everything, and uses their brain to make a more profitable product.

[Tisket]

It amuses me that AD thinks his insurance will go down if the rates of the person sitting in the cubicle next to him goes up.

[MrTastyHead]

I am classified as obese by insurance standards at 6'2, 250ish pounds. I can go do hard labor all day long, I haven't been to a doctor because of an illness in over five years (and that was a virus), have only had to have any major medical treatment once when I was 17 and in a car accident. Any and all tests on me come back just fine, except I'm overweight.

So how do you (general you) justify me paying more than anybody else because of my weight? If insurance companies will examine medical histories and offer a FAIR case by case cost based on medical history, sure. Charge the people who cost more. But I think we all know how likely that is to happen.

[Stanley Burrell]

edit 2- wtf is 1984 about?

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Is wtf that shniznod is about my wiqqa.

[AestheticDeath]

I agree that insurance should change. And everyone can be an added cost because insurance is basically making a bet you won't get sick. The only person who would never be an added burden to insurance with the increase of medical technology is someone who never got sick and never needed treatment. Somewhere down the line, due to genetics or lifestyle everyone will need treatment.

I didn't neg rep you. I don't think you realize though, perhaps because you have no recognized preexisting conditions, how much liberty insurance companies have taken when it comes to "paying the difference." Additionally, the position that you have staked is one of "we should let them charge extra," which is a slippery slope when dealing with companies who have already displayed unscrupulous behavior in the past with these same matters.

Yeah I didn't aim the rep thing at you, more so the others who didn't respond in here.

As far as the position I have staked, I wrote that the business paying the insurance should be able to pass the cost along, not that the insurance should have a right to be biased.

But, they should have a right to charge more for people who actually cost more. Otherwise they just lose money.

I don't think it is right to charge based on risk factors, but on proven cases and previous history, yes.

If I know you have had 17 wrecks in the past, am I going to let you drive my vehicle? No, not unless I want it wrecked. If your that guys brother, but haven't had an accident yet, should I treat you like him? No, not really but I am likely to.

If you have had heart attacks before, and the company doesn't charge you more based on that, knowing that you will have more, and they will have to pay the bill, they would be stupid to just take the normal payments rather than charging you more for the increased risk of them paying out on ya.

McDonald's?

Non-snide version:

1. Medicine does not offer a way to quantitatively and accurately rank someone's health. For example: my BMI is good, I've got great blood pressure and cholesterol, can run a mile in 7 minutes, can hit line drives all day, and my insurance company spends way more on me than the average fellow.

2. No science offers a way to quantitatively and accurately assign blame. Am I skinny because I'm such a great guy, or because I'm so modest? Or because my parents were both skinny back in the day? Or because I'm a picky eater? If nothing I've done "warrants" being skinny, can there be a way that everyone who is "fat" is directly and solely to blame for their condition?

3. Of course not... we can all agree that there are cases where being deemed a higher insurance risk cannot be reasonably blamed on the person in question. How could we shoehorn this common-sense agreement into the law? Does such a question even make sense - can the law be made subject and subordinate to what we all know is right? If not, how many innocent people are we comfortable sending to prison? (Or, in this case, fining.)
1, why are they paying more for you?

2, The cause of the risk factor isn't really something I find the issue with. If you have more health risk factors than someone else, you aughta be responsible for your own part, not dump that on everyone else.

In theory being able to share the cost of something is nice, and it allows someone else to profit off of the people who don't have things going wrong while allowing others to be able to afford the things they wouldn't otherwise be able to. Whether it be health care, or car insurance or something else.


If everyone was charged the same rate, you either have a lot of people being undercharged, wherein the company will go bankrupt trying to keep up with the bills of those people, and then there is no insurance and they are stuck with their numerous or costly bills anyways. Or you have otherwise healthy people being forced to overpay for something they don't really need, in the hope that they have something for when something big comes along.

With insurance, the needy are covered, in part by other peoples payments, whomever makes those payments, but their % of the bill should still be proportionate in some way to cover the costs without passing off to much responsibility to others.

The questions then, in my mind are, should a company just suck it up and pay more for some people? What if the costs to employ a person are more than the profit they bring in? If the case is that all employees are profitable, but you still have some costing more to employ than others, without their skill level being a factor, do you penalize one, or reward the other or do nothing?

But then you have the point, of how unhealthy a lot of people are. Therein, lies the real point some people would be making. Not whether someone is obese, or more costly to employ, but that they are a real addition to society, a role model of sorts, or a detriment to it. Should we allow the WORLD to become obese? Or should we do something, anything to curtail that? If we do something, where and how do we do it? Does it start with a business giving a reward to the people who put effort into becoming healthy? Not just the ones born to a decent size/shape/look. But the ones who eat healthy, or exercise. Does it start with restaurants not being allowed to serve overly unhealthy food? Higher prices for unhealthy food?

My point obviously started with and revolved around business and insurance costs. But there is something to be said for trying to improve on the health and appearance of modern day men and women.

[AestheticDeath]

I’d rather penalize stupid, non-productive, no-initiative-taking, coasters than the fat person who busts their ass, knows everything, and uses their brain to make a more profitable product.

Go you! But that isn't the argument. Person A should be fired, not penalized.


It amuses me that AD thinks his insurance will go down if the rates of the person sitting in the cubicle next to him goes up.
I never said my insurance rate would change. But if the other person has to pay a portion of their disproportionate insurance premium, the possibility of others getting a 'better quality' health plan could be possible. Because the company has a more linear average amount of money to spend on each person. Instead of dropping to a sub par coverage plan, they have a chance to get a better one. ETC


IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Hell yeah. That or bliss.

[thefarmer]

I think you missed the point. It isn't all about the worker. And it is not about purposely trying to infringe upon the rights of the worker who costs more to insure.

If I missed your point (and really, it is about infringing upon the rights of certain workers), it's because you haven't made one other than this summation (which seems like your real point)...


The question isn't why should they be penalized, it is "Why should I be penalized for their conditions"?

edit: Going by your 'point', should pregnant women pay more while they're pregnant? Going further should women actually pay more than men because they have the chance to get pregnant? Should black people pay because they're more prone to blood disorders? White people because they're more prone to issues with cancer? Etc etc.

[sst]

Man this is a loaded question for me to come back to...

I think it’s a good idea that if you have a "self inflicted" medical condition you should pay more than those that do not, i.e. smokers, tubbies, alcoholics, emos as just a few examples.

You're employer and the person next to you should not have to pay for your poor lifestyle choices.

[Tisket]

I never said my insurance rate would change.

If anything it would probably go up if anyone chooses to opt out because they don't want (or can't afford) higher rates. Guess who picks up the difference then.

[AestheticDeath]

If I missed your point (and really, it is about infringing upon the rights of certain workers), it's because you haven't made one other than this summation (which seems like your real point)...
How is it infringing on someones rights, to make them pay for benefits? Do the people with a higher health risk really have a 'right' to pay the same price as someone with a lower one? Does someone with little to no health risks have a 'right' to pay for something they don't need?

Everyone has the opportunity, not the right, to be included in a health care plan. The health care provider has a right, to a certain extent, to charge based on what they will be paying out. Obviously that can be abused, and seem unfair at times. I think we can all agree that insurance companies are not the most fair of people. But then neither is the government. But health care providers are companies as much as any other establishment. They need to make profit to stay alive. If they go down, everyone pays doctors out of pocket, and the obese, the people with problems, they all pay a SHIT LOAD MORE MONEY because of their own problems. Insurance companies benefit these people more than any other, and yet they or you, are going to argue that they should not pay more for those extra large benefits?

What exactly is the right you are claiming people to have in the healthcare/obesity argument?



edit: Going by your 'point', should pregnant women pay more while they're pregnant? Going further should women actually pay more than men because they have the chance to get pregnant? Should black people pay because they're more prone to blood disorders? White people because they're more prone to issues with cancer? Etc etc.

In some ways yes. I won't go into specifics, or where you draw the line or whether it is right or wrong. But health insurance is basically the same as car insurance. All risk factors go into deciding the premium.

If you want a certain factor to be covered by the insurance agency, then you have to a pay a premium to be covered. If the insurance agency does not pay out for the woman giving birth then no, she shouldn't be charged more because she can give birth. But, if she becomes pregnant, then she obviously increases her risk of certain things happening. If she wants those things to be covered, and she wants to be fair to the insurance company she needs to let them know she is pregnant, and then pay a smidgen higher premium to be covered for those contingencies.

[AestheticDeath]

If anything it would probably go up if anyone chooses to opt out because they don't want (or can't afford) higher rates. Guess who picks up the difference then.

If anyone opts out, the costs per person on average could rise. They do give discounts for larger groups. As far as the difference, it depends on the situation. If you are implying my rates as a less than average health risk would rise significantly because a higher health risk dropped out, I would disagree.

If a company I worked for announced they were paying up to $50 bucks a month per person who opted in for insurance, and I had to pay more than that to cover myself, and I thought it was worth it for me to do so then I would most definitely foot the bill myself. And I would expect the other people to pay whatever amount over $50 they would need to as well if they wanted in. If you see that as infringing on the workers 'rights' by making them pay more than me because they are more of a risk, then I disagree.

If you say that the insurance companies are improperly applying rates to people to be able to make a buck, I am sure you could prove the point and would agree it was something in poor taste etc.

But then again, no one HAS to have health insurance. People could always just simply pay out of pocket for their doctor bills.

[MrTastyHead]

But then again, no one HAS to have health insurance. People could always just simply pay out of pocket for their doctor bills.

That's not really a fair statement at this point in time. My mother was rear ended, no fault of her own in the least, a few months ago. The cost just to rent the OR for the neck surgery she needed? Over 40 grand. The surgeon? Over 40 grand.

And I won't even touch the insane cost of staying in a hospital, even for just one night.

Paying out of pocket for one bad accident would leave the majority of people practically in debt for life.

[Tisket]

If anyone opts out, the costs per person on average WOULD rise. They do give discounts for larger groups. As far as the difference, it depends on the situation. If you are implying my rates as a less than average health risk would rise significantly because a higher health risk dropped out YOU'D BE RIGHT.

Fixed.

[AestheticDeath]

Are you an insurance agent? If so I might defer to your opinions. Otherwise I don't think so.

The cost on average rising would depend on how large the group was initially. As well as the fact that you were saying the obese person who might be charged a hefty fee for their part would drop, which means out of the many people, one of the highest insurance premiums would be gone, and the total premium cost would decrease by a larger margin than the total number of people, thereby possibly lowering my premium.

[Seran]

It is true that being overweight puts you at a higher risk for things like diabetes, stroke, and heart disease.

But then again, so does being old. If you want to penalize heavy set people, please do it, and while your at it deduce 3% from the pay of everyone who is over the age of 45 and give it to us young, thin folk.

That is all.

[AestheticDeath]

That's not really a fair statement at this point in time. My mother was rear ended, no fault of her own in the least, a few months ago. The cost just to rent the OR for the neck surgery she needed? Over 40 grand. The surgeon? Over 40 grand.

And I won't even touch the insane cost of staying in a hospital, even for just one night.

Paying out of pocket for one bad accident would leave the majority of people practically in debt for life.

It isn't a fair statement because someone might have to pay a ton of money to fix a problem?

Would it be unfair if insurance companies went out of business, and we had no coverage? Thereby being responsible for our own bills?

Life is unfair. But really it isn't about having to pay your own bills, your point is more along the lines of hospitals and doctors charging outrageous fees. Hence why we even need the fucking insurance, because they want to get rich off of our disabilities and hardships.

Sure they had to go to school for a long time, and they have a skill in high demand, but should they be charging that much? I don't think so. But then again, I don't have an inside look on how much money it actually costs to run a hospital, or have the needles made, or the machines, and beds, and the electricity, and the pain killers, and the surgical tools, and the myriad of other things they need to use to get the job done. The different specialist doctors, the anesthetist, the cleaning crew mopping up your blood, the sterilizers getting rid of the blood on tools and equipment etc. I am sure there are shit tons of things going into any one surgery, and it may well cost and need to be close to the prices they charge. Especially when all 20 people involved in prepping, carrying out the surgery and cleaning up after. And the guy who turns the lights on and off, don't forget him.

[ElanthianSiren]

As far as the position I have staked, I wrote that the business paying the insurance should be able to pass the cost along, not that the insurance should have a right to be biased.

But, they should have a right to charge more for people who actually cost more. Otherwise they just lose money.

I don't think it is right to charge based on risk factors, but on proven cases and previous history, yes.



Ahh okay. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't believe a company is privy to this kind of information on its employees due to laws like HIPA. Therefor, it'd come down to the insurance companies, not the employers.



edit: Going by your 'point', should pregnant women pay more while they're pregnant? Going further should women actually pay more than men because they have the chance to get pregnant?

This is exactly what insurance was doing and what they got ripped for not two weeks ago before Congress.

[Gan]

If we had national healthcare, then you would not need your employer's health plan and thus you wouldnt have to worry about carrying the full burden of the next cubicle over orca's healthcare tab. That burden could be shared evenly amongst the compassionate and theraputic citizenry of our society. Afterall, its not their fault they're fat.


On a more serious note:
If fat people are penalized then so should stupid people, overly religious people, ugly people, and smelly people. Lets level the playing field.

I only have one conflicting thought, and thats when it comes to riding on business class or coach on an airplane when the person sitting next to you is so fat that the armrest wont go all the way down and their ass cheeks take up a quarter of your seat. And to top it off, its a meal flight and afterwards they pick up the trays the fucker starts gassing up the place. :help:

[thefarmer]

AD, you keep repeating that other people cost more than you. What kind of person are you?

Age?
Race?
Eating habits?
Smoke?
Drink?
Are you sexually active?
Have any allergies?
Surgeries?
History of any medical conditions in yourself or your family?
Do you live in your own home? Rent? Who are your neighbors?

These are just just off the top of my head.

Would you be so quick make the fat guy next to you pay more, if it actually turned out that you would pay more than him based on your answers?

[CrystalTears]

AD, you keep repeating that other people cost more than you. What kind of person are you?

Age?
Race?
Eating habits?
Smoke?
Drink?
Are you sexually active?
Have any allergies?
Surgeries?
History of any medical conditions in yourself or your family?
Do you live in your own home? Rent? Who are your neighbors?

These are just just off the top of my head.HE'S THE HEALTHIEST PERSON ALIVE! EVERYONE SHOULD PAY FOR HIS HEALTHCARE!

[CrystalTears]

On a more serious note:
If fat people are penalized then so should stupid people, overly religious people, ugly people, and smelly people. Lets level the playing field.
Aw, there's no need to talk about ClydeR like that. Meanness! :D


I only have one conflicting thought, and thats when it comes to riding on business class or coach on an airplane when the person sitting next to you is so fat that the armrest wont go all the way down and their ass cheeks take up a quarter of your seat. And to top it off, its a meal flight and afterwards they pick up the trays the fucker starts gassing up the place. :help:
US Air is taking care of that.

[Tisket]

I think AD is under the mistaken belief that the cost of a business's health insurance premium is paid for IN FULL by the employees of a company. This is false. They pay a fraction what the employer pays.

And employer provided coverage is already endangered but sure, let's advocate MORE cost. Because we are smart that way.

[MrTastyHead]

It isn't a fair statement because someone might have to pay a ton of money to fix a problem?

It isn't a fair statement because it just isn't true. I would wager a very, very, VERY small percentage of US citizens could handle a $250,000 medical bill. You're right that the reason is the outrageous charges in a hospital, but the reason doesn't change the fact that no, the vast majority of people simply could not pay out of pocket. The choice is either have insurance or don't get medical treatment. Period.

[AestheticDeath]

AD, you keep repeating that other people cost more than you. What kind of person are you?

Age?
Race?
Eating habits?
Smoke?
Drink?
Are you sexually active?
Have any allergies?
Surgeries?
History of any medical conditions in yourself or your family?
Do you live in your own home? Rent? Who are your neighbors?

These are just just off the top of my head.

Would you be so quick make the fat guy next to you pay more, if it actually turned out that you would pay more than him based on your answers?

- 20s
- technically Caucasian
- poor
- no
- no
- no
- seasonal, once yearly(Texas), though not as often now, and I don't believe any insurance I have ever had was good enough to help with much of this, unless it was the doctors visit copay which saved me like $15, $40 -> $25
- none covered by insurance (wisdom teeth, and recent eye corrective surgery)
- no history for me, dunno about family
- say what?

And yes, if I needed insurance, I wouldn't care if I was paying more than someone else as long as there is good reason, if the tables turn, and I am the fat guy later on, and being penalized for that, tough shit for me, Id suck it up and pay. As long as I could afford to. If not, then oh well. That's life. Isn't always fair.

It's the same as car insurance, if I have more wrecks then another person, I expect to pay more for car insurance.


EVERYONE SHOULD PAY FOR HIS HEALTHCARE!Where'd I say anyone should have to pay for mine?


I think AD is under the mistaken belief that the cost of a business's health insurance premium is paid for IN FULL by the employees of a company. This is false. They pay a fraction what the employer pays.

And employer provided coverage is already endangered but sure, let's advocate MORE cost. Because we are smart that way.

Where did this come from? I am an employee, I don't pay jack for the plan my company has for us. I never said I thought employees do or should or whatever. I simply stated our coverage plan isn't as good as it could be because of other individuals cost being so high it is prohibitive to get a better plan.

It isn't a fair statement because it just isn't true. I would wager a very, very, VERY small percentage of US citizens could handle a $250,000 medical bill. You're right that the reason is the outrageous charges in a hospital, but the reason doesn't change the fact that no, the vast majority of people simply could not pay out of pocket. The choice is either have insurance or don't get medical treatment. Period.
I think you misunderstood my intent when I said everyone could pay for their own bills. I didn't mean to say it was affordable. I didn't mean to say it was fair. I meant to say if someone wants to complain about the insurance company charging them higher rates, because they are a higher risk for drawing on the insurance, they could always drop it. And yes, it a lot of cases this would result in a fucked up life for someone with problems. Whatever kind of problem it may be. And possibly a very short life.

It was the same as all the other stupid sayings like, if you don't like the game, you can quit etc.

[thefarmer]

- 20s
- technically Caucasian
- poor
- no
- no
- no
- seasonal, once yearly(Texas), though not as often now, and I don't believe any insurance I have ever had was good enough to help with much of this, unless it was the doctors visit copay which saved me like $15, $40 -> $25
- none covered by insurance (wisdom teeth, and recent eye corrective surgery)
- no history for me, dunno about family
- say what?

Since you're in your 20's, and studies have shown that adults 20-30 are more likely to contract X virus, we're going to charge you an extra $500.

Since your eating habits are poor, and studies have shown that adults in your age bracket who eat poorly are prone to severe health problems, we're going to charge you $500.

Since you have seasonal allergies, and studies have shown that adults who have allergies, with bad health, in your age bracket are more likely to require frequent doctor's visits, we're going to charge you $500.

Since you have had recent surgeries, and studies have shown that adults who are in your age bracket, whom eat poorly, do not take care of themselves properly, will suffer from ill aftereffects, we're going to charge you $500.

Since you don't know your medical family history, and studies have shown that people who don't know, generally have cases of mental health issues, we're going to charge you $500.

Since you rent an apartment in an area classified as 'urban', and studies have shown that adults in your age bracket who rent in urban areas tend to live unhealthy and possibly dangerously, we're going to charge you $500.

(Repeat forever)

How far do you think we should go?




I didn't mean to say it was fair. I meant to say if someone wants to complain about the insurance company charging them higher rates, because they are a higher risk for drawing on the insurance, they could always drop it.

Oh, I get it.. so, like..

If someone wants to complain about the poor coverage their insurance company provides they could always buy other insurance..

[AestheticDeath]

Whatever floats your boat buddy.

And yeah, I could buy different insurance on my own dime, but it would likely be a waste of money. My only problem is the deductible for major stuff is higher than it has to be.

[Cusack]

Also, I rather suspect Clyde is 350 pounds. Must suck to never see one's own toes.

..Or penis..

[sst]

It is true that being overweight puts you at a higher risk for things like diabetes, stroke, and heart disease.

But then again, so does being old. If you want to penalize heavy set people, please do it, and while your at it deduce 3% from the pay of everyone who is over the age of 45 and give it to us young, thin folk.

That is all.

you CAN'T do anything about being old except die.

You CAN do something about being a fat

[Jorddyn]

Sure, add to fat people's premiums. Just make sure you pick up any other statistically known higher price group - old people, smokers drinkers, females of child bearing age, unmarried (statistically not as healthy). Oh, and that whole family insurance thing? It is no more. Discounted rate only applies to employee - all others pay full price on a per individual basis.

I'd be ok with the above if they applied it to every group that is statistically more expensive to insure, and didn't arbitrarily choose one issue.

[Ignot]

You CAN do something about being a fat

Yeah, for the most part but I know this fat guy at work (not the smelly one) who has some medical problem and he has to take this medicine that makes him gain a ton of weight. This guy works out on his lunch break everyday and eats like salads and shit. I don't really talk to him so much so I don't know what he does outside of work but some people can't help being fat. :shrug:

[sst]

Yeah, for the most part but I know this fat guy at work (not the smelly one) who has some medical problem and he has to take this medicine that makes him gain a ton of weight. This guy works out on his lunch break everyday and eats like salads and shit. I don't really talk to him so much so I don't know what he does outside of work but some people can't help being fat. :shrug:

That’s an acceptable reason to be exempt. What I have an issue with is paying an extra 20$ a month so Joe across from me can eat his double double with cheese fries every day for lunch. Because we all know that in 10 years Joe is going to have a quadruple bypass surgery, which is going to cost $240,000; far more than Joe is every going to pay into Health Insurance in his lifetime

[MrTastyHead]

And of course there are those of us who are just big boned.

[AnticorRifling]

I hate paying for chipped teeth.

[sst]

Sadly, you're going to be paying for it for the rest of your life. The joys of injuries caused by the military.

[ElanthianSiren]

That’s an acceptable reason to be exempt.

So what are the reasonable reasons to be exempt?

Someone mentioned diabetes earlier, and I'd like to point out that most people who are overweight and develop type 2 diabetes have had it for years before they find out. Also, they are often overweight due to genetic defects on the receptors of their cells for insulin, which cause their bodies to have trouble processing food to energy. So the food goes to fat because their body says, "hey! I'm not using it!" Understanding this only takes a bit of understanding as to what our metabolism does with energy (blood sugar) it doesn't use. This is a self perpetuating cycle, despite the fact that many people with type 2 diabetes actually do get exercise and eat well.

So one heavy guy needing meds is exempt, (his meds caused it), but someone else is NOT exempt due to having screwed up cells because their cells are to blame for them being fat unlike the guy who is fat because of his medicines. I just want to understand this...

[Jorddyn]

That’s an acceptable reason to be exempt. What I have an issue with is paying an extra 20$ a month so Joe across from me can eat his double double with cheese fries every day for lunch. Because we all know that in 10 years Joe is going to have a quadruple bypass surgery, which is going to cost $240,000; far more than Joe is every going to pay into Health Insurance in his lifetime

Health insurance costs my company around $3MM every year (Self insured, ~1300 employees).

Product we had to throw away last week because some jackass hosed it up? $180,000.

I'll take intelligent fat people over some skinny jackass who drops his screwdriver into the fryer and doesn't tell anyone (because he didn't think plastic would melt, and we then have an entire day's production we have to throw away, plus pay to ship back the stuff that was shipped straight off the line). While I agree medical and insurance costs are getting out of control, when they're tied in to your employer, there are much easier and less painful ways to not destory the bottom line.

But again, I'd go with it so long as they picked up all bad habits/known high-cost traits, and not just one.

[sst]

So what are the reasonable reasons to be exempt?

Someone mentioned diabetes earlier, and I'd like to point out that most people who are overweight and develop type 2 diabetes have had it for years before they find out. Also, they are often overweight due to genetic defects on the receptors of their cells for insulin, which cause their bodies to have trouble processing food to energy. So the food goes to fat because their body says, "hey! I'm not using it!" Understanding this only takes a bit of understanding as to what our metabolism does with energy (blood sugar) it doesn't use. This is a self perpetuating cycle, despite the fact that many people with type 2 diabetes actually do get exercise and eat well.

So one heavy guy needing meds is exempt, (his meds caused it), but someone else is NOT exempt due to having screwed up cells because their cells are to blame for them being fat unlike the guy who is fat because of his medicines. I just want to understand this...

Its all pretty much right there below


That’s an acceptable reason to be exempt. What I have an issue with is paying an extra 20$ a month so Joe across from me can eat his double double with cheese fries every day for lunch. Because we all know that in 10 years Joe is going to have a quadruple bypass surgery, which is going to cost $240,000; far more than Joe is every going to pay into Health Insurance in his lifetime

[ElanthianSiren]

Yeah but how do you prove it is the thing. Who sets the standard? Young guy downs 18 hamburgers a day and nobody notices, but we hire investigators to follow overweight CEO?

Like Jorddyn inferred, it's irresponsible and biased to place the blame solely on being overweight. Trying to say someone is less deserving of a good quality of life and medical care because they're overweight is a line I'm not willing to cross, less it be crossed later for new scapegoats, as the insurance industry has done repeatedly.

[sst]

Then it is also irresponsible to alter life insurance rates on lifestyle as well as car insurance rates. We should just get rid of insurance all together.

[Jorddyn]

Then it is also irresponsible to alter life insurance rates on lifestyle as well as car insurance rates. We should just get rid of insurance all together.

Life insurance and car insurance don't decide whether you live or die. Lack of health insurance can very well make that decision for you.

I'm not against adjusting it so long as it is adjusted for everything that is shown to increase health care costs. And, in all honesty, I think that people would find the list of questions they would have to answer ridiculously intrusive, and they may not want their HR department knowing how many times they've engaged in unprotected sex, jumped out of an airplane, or drank more than 1 drink in a day, and submit to mandatory annual urine and/or blood tests to see if they're lying, so I don't think such a plan would be incredibly popular. But that's why it's easy to say "Fat people" - it's an easy, obvious, and proveable metric, while many of the other factors aren't.

[sst]

I'm for adjusting it for self inflicted health care ailments. Thinking about it it’s a pretty bleeding heart stance on my part, quite far from my normal stance on these types of subjects...
I don't think it’s something HR would get involved in anyways. I'm sure the Health Insurance company would be more then glad to collect the data so they can adjust their rates appropriately

Jorddyn, I'll also admit I have a bit of a bias on what the HR department knows and doesn’t know. Let’s just say polygraphs suck, I have to pee in a cup on a regular basis, there is almost nothing my employer doesn’t know about me, and if they wanted to know all they would have to do is ask.

[sst]

[QUOTE=Jorddyn;939476]Life insurance and car insurance don't decide whether you live or die. Lack of health insurance can very well make that decision for you.
[QUOTE]

I wanted to address this separately. Health Insurance does not decide whether you live or die either. That is a common misconception that people have. You may not get the world’s best care without it, but you'll get the care.

[Latrinsorm]

1, why are they paying more for you?I'm on five prescription drugs due to genetic defects and I see two medical professionals regularly. I am assuming that the average insured person consumes less medical resources than that.
2, The cause of the risk factor isn't really something I find the issue with. If you have more health risk factors than someone else, you aughta be responsible for your own part, not dump that on everyone else.What if I grew up drinking well water that some industrial company inadvertantly poisoned due to dumping mercury in it decades before I was born? In what way "aught" I be responsible for that?
That's life. Isn't always fair.This is what puzzles me the most: you won't accept Tisket's proclamations about economics, but you're perfectly happy making proclamations about the nature of the universe. Who says life isn't fair, and who says we can't make it fair if it isn't? We can put a man on the moon and a black man in the Oval Office, who are you to say we can't do something?

Putting that aside, if life isn't fair, so what if you have to pay for Joe's quad bypass? Why couldn't the insurance company tell you to "suck it up"? Life's not fair, after all.

[thefarmer]

I wanted to address this separately. Health Insurance does not decide whether you live or die either. That is a common misconception that people have. You may not get the world’s best care without it, but you'll get the care.

Denzel disagrees.

http://www.impawards.com/2002/posters/john_q.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Health Insurance does not decide whether you live or die either. That is a common misconception that people have. You may not get the world’s best care without it, but you'll get the care.My father, my grandmother, and three of my uncles would be stone dead without health insurance. This is not a misconception, this is a fact. You are permitted to believe this is not the case, but I'd advise against it as a fellow seeker of truth.

[Kyra231]

I wanted to address this separately. Health Insurance does not decide whether you live or die either. That is a common misconception that people have. You may not get the world’s best care without it, but you'll get the care.

Please refer to my sig quote. Ffs can any more stupid roll out of your mouth?

[sst]

My father, my grandmother, and three of my uncles would be stone dead without health insurance. This is not a misconception, this is a fact. You are permitted to believe this is not the case, but I'd advise against it as a fellow seeker of truth.

What sickness did they have that medicare or medicaid would not cover if they did not have health insurance?

cancer?
MS?
heart problems?

[diethx]

I wanted to address this separately. Health Insurance does not decide whether you live or die either. That is a common misconception that people have. You may not get the world’s best care without it, but you'll get the care.

What about organ transplants? Aren't you unable get those unless you can pay for it up front (or have insurance)? I'd say that pretty much determines whether you live or die... seeing as most people who could afford an organ transplant out of pocket would probably have insurance anyway.

[diethx]

Denzel disagrees.

http://www.impawards.com/2002/posters/john_q.jpg

Oh sht, SEE. Also, booooo broken pic.

[Jorddyn]

Jorddyn, I'll also admit I have a bit of a bias on what the HR department knows and doesn’t know. Let’s just say polygraphs suck, I have to pee in a cup on a regular basis, there is almost nothing my employer doesn’t know about me, and if they wanted to know all they would have to do is ask.

I'm guessing this has something to do with the job you have, and the clearance you have. When I was doing investment accounting, I had to submit to fingerprinting and a full background check. I don't know that I'd be as willing if my job was gutting turkeys.


I wanted to address this separately. Health Insurance does not decide whether you live or die either. That is a common misconception that people have. You may not get the world’s best care without it, but you'll get the care.

If you've lost a limb or are having a heart attack, sure. If you need triple bypass to prevent a heart attack, have progressive organ failure, or cancer? No. Hospitals can choose to help, or not to help. Were this not true, we'd have either global health insurance or socialized medicine.

[sst]

What about organ transplants? Aren't you unable get those unless you can pay for it up front (or have insurance)? I'd say that pretty much determines whether you live or die... seeing as most people who could afford an organ transplant out of pocket would probably have insurance anyway.

medicare and medicaid will pay for transplants, and depending on which hospitals you go to they facility often fronts the bill.

Medicare and Medicaid of course come with income limits but there are ways around that.

If you read into the document you'll see what I’m talking about, the beginning is your normal liberal tripe

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1514702

[thefarmer]

medicare and medicaid will pay for transplants, and depending on which hospitals you go to they facility often fronts the bill.

And which hospitals do you know, from personal experience, that do this?


Medicare and Medicaid of course come with income limits but there are ways around that.

Like?

[sst]

And which hospitals do you know, from personal experience, that do this?

read the article.


Like?

"losing your job"

[Jorddyn]

medicare and medicaid will pay for transplants, and depending on which hospitals you go to they facility often fronts the bill.

The hospitals, however, are not required to do so.


Medicare and Medicaid of course come with income limits but there are ways around that.

So, you're only covered if you lie about your income? If it's that easy, why doesn't everyone do it?

[Latrinsorm]

Mostly heart problems, and I would encourage you to research exactly what, how much, and whom Medicare and Medicaid actually cover. (To get you started, the answers are not "everything, everything, and everyone".)

So yeah, that'll teach me to go watch the TiVo. This was a response to Dave's response to me. :D

[thefarmer]

read the article.

""But we have only very rarely turned down a patient because of lack of insurance. In virtually all circumstances, the patient can arrange coverage of some sort.""


So.. you point to an article that specifically states that patients have been turned down for an organ transplant because of the lack of insurance?



"losing your job"

That's your 'way around it'? That's a brilliant idea.

[sst]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/preexisting.condition.insurance/index.html

I was about to go to bed and was checking the news and saw this... It’s a good read on how "easy" it is to get insurance with preexisting conditions.

im off to bed so if im around ill respond more later


1. Become a group of one.

In about a dozen states, you can be a group all by yourself for insurance purposes. What this means is that you become, in effect, just like any other company, and insurers can't deny you insurance or charge you higher premiums because of your pre-existing condition, according to Lembo.

"You'd be surprised at the number of folks who open their own landscaping business" to get the group of one, he says.

To find out whether your state will allow you to become a group of one, see this list from the Kaiser Family Foundation (look at the column headed "Definition of Small Group," and look for "1-50").

For more information on becoming a group of one, see this advice from the American Diabetes Association.

In states where you can't become a group of one, you can become a group of two.

"You can hire your brother-in-law to become a subcontractor for your landscaping company," Lembo said. "It's horrible, but what else are you going to do?"

An important note: Under these rules, an insurance company might be allowed to exclude coverage for your specific condition for a short period of time, usually about six months.

2. If you've been laid off, get COBRA.

COBRA can be extremely expensive, but it's worth digging deep in your pockets for the premiums, because it may be difficult, if not impossible, to get insurance any other way, Consumer Reports' Metcalf says. If you've been laid off since September 1, you're eligible for a 65 percent discount on COBRA premiums. For more information, visit the Department of Labor's Web site.

3. When you lose your employer-related insurance, apply for new insurance within 63 days.

In all states, a designated insurance company -- charmingly called "the insurer of last resort" -- has to take "all comers" in insurance lingo. You have to apply for this insurance within 63 days of losing your group insurance. For all the rules, read this explanation from Families USA (scroll down and look for the "HIPAA eligible" heading).

Here's the bad news: Although in some states there are limits to what the "insurer of last resort" can charge you, in other states, there aren't. In those states, "the sky's the limit," Metcalf said. "They can and will charge you a fortune. It could be, say, $1,400 a month in premiums with a $5,000 deductible. But some people pay that because it's the only game in town."

To find out the rules in your state, visit the Kaiser Family Foundation's State Health Facts or contact your state insurance commissioner.

4. Find out whether your state has a high-risk pool.

State high-risk pools are specifically for people with pre-existing conditions who can't find affordable insurance on their own. Thirty states have high-risk pools, insuring 175,000 people, according to the American Diabetes Association, which lists the states on its Web site.

5. See whether your professional organization offers group insurance.

Some professional groups, such as those representing real estate agents and freelance writers, offer health insurance. Check and see whether your profession does the same.

Here's another piece of advice, offered somewhat tongue in cheek: Move to Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York or Vermont.

"In those states, everyone has to sell to you," said Cheryl Fish-Parcham, deputy director of health policy at Families USA. Not only do insurance companies have to sell you a policy in those states, there are limits on how much they can charge you, she says.

For more help in finding insurance when you have a pre-existing condition, you can contact the Cover Me Foundation at 877-678-7631 or Coverage For All at 800-234-1317.

[Jorddyn]

So if you give everything away, quit your job, move to New York, and open a landscaping business, you're set!

Here's hoping you don't have a coronary in the process.

[diethx]

Man, it's really heartwarming to see that sst is still such a fucking idiot.

Some things just never change!

[Jorddyn]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1514702

Oh, and since it finally loaded - directly from your article.



It's the harsh reality of the organ transplant field: Patients who are uninsured or unable to pay are sometimes denied lifesaving treatment because hospitals can't afford to foot the bill for the surgery or the extensive recovery.

So... they die because they don't get treatment. They don't get treatment because they don't have insurance. Which was my point as to how health insurance is vastly different from car or life insurance.

So can we go back to discussing fat people?

[diethx]

So can we go back to discussing fat people?

Fat people >>>> sst

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Man, it's really heartwarming to see that sst is still such a fucking idiot.

Some things just never change!

I was going to respond to the thread, but thus far I can only emphasize this excellent summary.

[CrystalTears]

I would be interested to know what they're going to construe as "fat". Seeing what some people around here consider to be fat, I wouldn't want to be judged by someone who thinks anyone more than 100 pounds and doesn't have bones jutting out of their hips is fat.

[MrTastyHead]

We can put a man on the moon and a black man in the Oval Office, who are you to say we can't do something?

Having nothing further to add to this discussion, I found this very amusing.

Black president = OUTER FUCKING SPACE

[Stanley Burrell]

Black president = OUTER FUCKING SPACE

http://citycyclops.com/see/obama.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

That's Obama riding a narwhal.

I don't really know what made me make that connection. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone.

[MrTastyHead]

I found it fitting. Anybody who didn't is wrong.

[AestheticDeath]

What if I grew up drinking well water that some industrial company inadvertantly poisoned due to dumping mercury in it decades before I was born? In what way "aught" I be responsible for that?

This is what puzzles me the most: you won't accept Tisket's proclamations about economics, but you're perfectly happy making proclamations about the nature of the universe. Who says life isn't fair, and who says we can't make it fair if it isn't? We can put a man on the moon and a black man in the Oval Office, who are you to say we can't do something?

Putting that aside, if life isn't fair, so what if you have to pay for Joe's quad bypass? Why couldn't the insurance company tell you to "suck it up"? Life's not fair, after all.

Yeah you should still have to pay your portion of the bill even if someone else caused the problem. That isn't to say you cannot sue said company or individual that caused it to pick up that portion for you, instead of yourself all your coworkers. Just goes back to liability, as well as personal responsibility.

Which of Tiskets proclamations were correct?

And if life was fair, we wouldn't have to bust our ass to put food on the table. We wouldn't have to pay for anything. People would just have their skill sets, and trade them freely with others without asking for recompense. Doctors would treat everyone for everything, farmers would share their hard won crops with everyone else, builders and crafters would make homes for everyone etc. There would be no famine, or disease or war.

OR, everyone can learn to go fucking grow the crops themselves, they can build their own homes, they can fix their own fucking broken bones, and replace their own failing organs(or just die when God intended if you live on faith). They can be responsible for all their own choices and needs. And everyone can covet what others have. Then they wind up stealing what they want, taking what they want by force etc. Then we have more wars, less population, and it becomes survival of the fittest with slavery, or kings/rulers who charge insane taxs and offerings.

[thefarmer]

Yeah you should still have to pay your portion of the bill even if someone else caused the problem. That isn't to say you cannot sue said company or individual that caused it to pick up that portion for you, instead of yourself all your coworkers. Just goes back to liability, as well as personal responsibility.

Which of Tiskets proclamations were correct?

And if life was fair, we wouldn't have to bust our ass to put food on the table. We wouldn't have to pay for anything. People would just have their skill sets, and trade them freely with others without asking for recompense. Doctors would treat everyone for everything, farmers would share their hard won crops with everyone else, builders and crafters would make homes for everyone etc. There would be no famine, or disease or war.

OR, everyone can learn to go fucking grow the crops themselves, they can build their own homes, they can fix their own fucking broken bones, and replace their own failing organs(or just die when God intended if you live on faith). They can be responsible for all their own choices and needs. And everyone can covet what others have. Then they wind up stealing what they want, taking what they want by force etc. Then we have more wars, less population, and it becomes survival of the fittest with slavery, or kings/rulers who charge insane taxs and offerings.

Whatever floats your boat buddy.

[ClydeR]

When (mostly smaller?) companies are forced to pay super high rates for those employees that have their own conditions, the quality of the health care package the company buys usually suffers. Which means I, and people like me, are getting much less coverage than we could. Super high deductibles that don't even come into play quick enough to help us in a real time of need.

You should be able to charge those people who are overweight, and have pre-existing conditions the extra portion over what a healthy person like myself would cost. Or something.

I couldn't have said it any better.

That's why the Republican plan advanced by candidate McCain was good. He would have made employees pay tax on the value of the health insurance benefits provided by their employers. With one small tweak, you could make the tax higher on fat people and lower on normal people.

[ClydeR]

Isn't the whole point of getting worker provided insurance because it's cheaper? If you cost less money to insure, then go buy your own?

Yep. And it could be even cheaper if the employee pool excluded fat people or if fat people paid the extra cost associated with including them in the pool.

[ClydeR]

Additionally, that sort of logic regarding pre-existing conditions is much of what has caused the general outcry against insurance presently. There's a difference between making up the difference and taking advantage. Insurance companies have demonstrated effectively that they can't make that delineation for themselves, so why should we trust them to with regard to work based plans?

That's why the Republican plan, as articulated by candidate McCain, would allow people with preexisting conditions buy special insurance from state high risk insurance pools. The Democrat plan would force insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions, which would shift the burden to the rest of us.

[ClydeR]

Sure, add to fat people's premiums. Just make sure you pick up any other statistically known higher price group - old people, smokers drinkers, females of child bearing age, unmarried (statistically not as healthy). Oh, and that whole family insurance thing? It is no more. Discounted rate only applies to employee - all others pay full price on a per individual basis.

I said in my original post that I don't want a lot of restrictions on the free market. Insurers should be free to insure or not insure and charge more or less to whomever they want. Capitalism, not socialism, will solve the health insurance problem.

[ClydeR]

Today's Dilbert (http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-05-16/) comic strip was about this very subject.

[Tisket]

Whatever floats your boat buddy.


AD can't seem to stay on topic for more than a dozen words without reaching some ludicrous fantasy conclusions. Him using 1000 words to prove he's wrong doesn't make him any less wrong, contrary to what he apparently believes. Unless of course, his plan is to post something so verbally-laxated and rambling that people won't bother reading it at all. He just keeps posting the same flawed argument over and over and when people point out how shockingly full of holes it is he simply takes the same argument and ADDS MORE WORDS. It's an odd strategy.

To summarize he needs to:

Use
Fewer
Words

[Tisket]

I would be interested to know what they're going to construe as "fat".

Apparently I don't make the rockin world go round. Fucking BMI.

[Clove]

Apparently I don't make the rockin world go round. Fucking BMI.I'd like to penalize Tisket.

[diethx]

Apparently I don't make the rockin world go round. Fucking BMI.

Yes we've all see your bottom, ty!!!! :D

[Krendeli]

I'm not going to flip through 11 new pages, but this is a bad slippery slope to go down. You penalize for weight...next it's gambling...where does it stop?

I've had two doctor visits in the past five years, neither of which was related to my weight (I'm 5'10" and 269, lost 4 pounds this week because I stopped eating out and started eating healthier). If I've had to guess the numbers of times I've been sick in the last five years, I'd bet that it wouldn't be more than 1.

There's a woman in my office who has herself or her family into the doctor's office at least once a week. I guarantee you the cost for her to go is leaps and bounds higher than mine and my family. Yet, my family should pay more?

If your going to give penalties to employees, do it on usage. If companies want to help their employees, they need to get programs that WORK out there. My employer has a program that only requires us to do yearly health assessments. And that's all that happens. No follow ups, no nothing.

I never started to help myself until I decided to take some responsibility for what I had done. And I did that simply with two lists: one, what active things did I used to do but can't do anymore because of my weight and two, what was I eating.

The eating list is astounding by the way. On a given night, I would choose one of the options below for a dinner:

1 footlong sub and large fries, or
1 large pizza from Dominoes or Papa John's, or
18 piece BBQ wings from KFC, or
5 steak quesadillas with extra cheese from Taco Bell, or
7 cheeseburgers from McDonald's, or
2 boxes of Pizzafils (pretzels with a pizza filling) about 20 pieces, or
the all you can eat buffet from Bonanza (steakhouse if you don't know what that is), or
5 roast beef sandwiches from Arby's, or
the quart dinner from a Chinese restaurant

I was packing the calories.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah you should still have to pay your portion of the bill even if someone else caused the problem.This really doesn't sound crazy to you? Some dirt farmer whose three children have leukemia thanks to GE dumping uranium in the groundwater is supposed to somehow win a lawsuit against them for your system to work?
And if life was fair...Let me try this:

Person A says, "You have to pay just as much as your medically obese co-worker Manny."
You say, "That's not fair, they should pay more."
Person A says, "Life's not fair, suck it up."

Person B says, "Manny, you have to pay more than AD because you are medically obese."
Manny says, "That's not fair, we should pay the same."
Person B says, "Life's not fair, suck it up."

Do you see how the amount of fairness in life is rhetorically irrelevant? It's as compelling an argument as "because I'm your father", what place does it have in rational decision-making?

[Euler]

why don't we move to more preventative health care? Tape worms should be covered.

[Gan]

Apparently I don't make the rockin world go round. Fucking BMI.
Queen reference FTW. :)

You get rep as soon as it can be given.

[Clove]

Apparently I don't make the rockin world go round. Fucking BMI.Maybe you ought to try to let it all hang out.

[ElanthianSiren]

According to our health tied to BMI, I was the "healthiest" I've ever been last semester when I was almost under weight for my height and anemic. That alone makes me wonder, unless you consider constant exhaustion and the inability to concentrate and remember things to be a health pinnacle.

I'll admit though that it was interesting to see my tightest clothes baggy.

[Gan]

I laugh at BMI indexes. I'd be anemic and anorexic if I were to use that as a scale for health.

[ElanthianSiren]

Thus back to my... what system to use to decide if someone is overweight/unhealthy and should pay more.

Is it somebody's judgement -- because to be honest, I believe most people I see are overweight. Pass for the Jessica Rabbits of the world though, who are few and far between. ...And scrawny geek men.

This is why I could never be an evaluator of who is "fat" and who isn't. I simply don't believe the magic insurance companies or employer would fare much better in making a value judgement about it either.

[Gan]

For the same reason why its not a good thing to have a "Barbi" complex.

Society's preconceptions forced onto those who are unable or unwiling to fit into that mold.

The test is when a person, through their existence, infringes upon the rights of others. In the case of the OP of this thread - the infringement is economically. Definately a good test for 'society' and who fits within its contract.

[AestheticDeath]

This really doesn't sound crazy to you? Some dirt farmer whose three children have leukemia thanks to GE dumping uranium in the groundwater is supposed to somehow win a lawsuit against them for your system to work?

Crazy or not. Hm. If I were the dirt farmer, or the children, I am sure I would be very upset other people didn't want to help pay for my unintended physical ailments.

But why should I be penalized because someone else has problems? Because someone else made a mistake? You're trying to give someone a better living at the cost of my own. What makes their life more deserving than mine? Because a third party hurt them?

Selfish? Yes. Heartless? Yes. Realistic? Yes.




Let me try this:
Person A says, "You have to pay just as much as your medically obese co-worker Manny."
You say, "That's not fair, they should pay more."
Person A says, "Life's not fair, suck it up."
Person B says, "Manny, you have to pay more than AD because you are medically obese."
Manny says, "That's not fair, we should pay the same."
Person B says, "Life's not fair, suck it up."
Do you see how the amount of fairness in life is rhetorically irrelevant? It's as compelling an argument as "because I'm your father", what place does it have in rational decision-making?

So it isn't fair if someone has to pay for being unhealthy?

Fat people have to pay more for clothing because it takes more cloth to get around their bloated bellies. Do you think it would be a fair practice to charge the same amount for every piece of clothing no matter how much work or cloth goes into the pieces?

They pay more because they need more. It is logical.

Mr. Krendeli may not have been to a doctor as often as he should have because he has a fear of doctors, or not enough money. Realistically his overeating probably hasn't caught up with his body yet. But mark my words, if he keeps eating for 3-4, he WILL have cholesterol and heart problems. Death by heart attack anyone? Or years of health insurance payments to get by the first 5 heart attacks(with everyone else helping pay his bills by sharing the cost of the insurance - trying to prevent the inevitable), until that sixth one finally does him in.

You may not see the consequences at the moment from your eating habits, and you may think you are 'healthy' since you don't get sick. But you will cost as much or more than 'sick' normal weight people in the end. And it will probably be in your final five years of life.

But yes, there should also be higher premiums for people who overuse the health care system.

Seriously I think humanity as a whole has put too much emphasis on living as long as possible, no matter how poor your quality of life is in the end.

So what if you make it to 100? Someone else is wiping your ass, soaking up your drool, paying your bills, feeding you(likely 10-20 pills as a meal instead of food) and more then likely sticking you in a nursing home because they don't wanna fucking deal with you. And for those charming people with enough heart in them to actually deal with their parents, they usually go near crazy trying to keep up with it all. In some cases it takes so damn much out of them to take care of those people, and themselves, and trying to keep a job to have the money to be able to do these things, they wind up croaking not long after, or sometimes before the one who needed help in the first place.

Personally it is about quality, not quantity. It is about taking care of my own damn problems, not putting them off on someone else to share the burden.

[AestheticDeath]

Thus back to my... what system to use to decide if someone is overweight/unhealthy and should pay more.

Is it somebody's judgement -- because to be honest, I believe most people I see are overweight. Pass for the Jessica Rabbits of the world though, who are few and far between. ...And scrawny geek men.

This is why I could never be an evaluator of who is "fat" and who isn't. I simply don't believe the magic insurance companies or employer would fare much better in making a value judgement about it either.

No shit, right? The majority of people I see now days, especially women, are all overweight, and a very large portion of those overweight people are obese.

Don't you think something should be done about it? Why not start here. Make them pay for their callous attitude towards life. In the end, they will have better health and more money in their pocket. They won't spend nearly as much on food, or on health care. Society overall will benefit.

[Ignot]

"We are living in a society!"

[AestheticDeath]

Perhaps all workplaces should just take a queue from schools and require a PE portion during work hours. :)

All those who participate get a discount/reward.

[Gan]

I'd love it if my employer would have a gym (basketball), batting cages, and a weight center so that I could have an hour of workout time (not incoluding lunch) to help keep fit.

Too bad I dont work for Google...

[Stanley Burrell]

Plenty of healthy, fit people get sick. I don't think battling obesity through higher insurance premiums is going to do the trick. I dare people to start putting up shock value billboards on the highway that say some heretical words like "Eat fruits and vegetables. Fast food for 6 meals a day is unhealthy."

McDonald's should just drug its food.

[ElanthianSiren]

Don't you think something should be done about it? Why not start here. Make them pay for their callous attitude towards life. In the end, they will have better health and more money in their pocket. They won't spend nearly as much on food, or on health care. Society overall will benefit.

I don't feel that it's my place to decide what is and isn't acceptable for anyone else's health. Doctors did that to me as a child and caused an obesity problem. My body doesn't tolerate processed food well, naming here rice and pasta, as I wasn't a sugar eater due to type 1 diabetes. I was on an "exchange" program to make sure my insulin levels didn't cause me to have seizures/comas. Unfortunately, I still had these effects AND the exchange diet didn't agree with my body and caused massive weight gain. This in fact caused me to eat less because I was concerned about gaining weight, which resulted in more seizures, which resulted in more raw carbohydrates being IV'd into my blood, which resulted in more weight gain, which resulted in more restricted eating, which resulted in more seizures, which resulted in....(repeat until you get to insulin pumps and lantus).

Punishments derrived then for what weight someone "should" be aren't my place to make. The judgement that they possess a "callous" attitude toward life, especially isn't my place to make. In actuality, having volunteered to work with diabetics, mostly type 2s, they agonize about their weight, and again, are overweight not because they necessarily eat too much. The solution I've found that worked the most, however, isn't even advocated by the AMA. Thus, weight "health", in my opinion, is a huge debacle encompassing most private sector services where many people involved know very little about disturbed metabolism and thus do more harm than good.

In the end though, I can only make the calls you're asking for for myself, and I don't believe insurance or the employer has the charge of making them for someone else either because they are just as biased as the next person. Finally, I would agree with having PE time during work for a mandatory slash to the person's insurance, but I believe what you'd see is an inflation of insurance rates to compensate. Insurance isn't in the business of keeping people healthy; they are in the business of making money.

[AestheticDeath]

I don't feel that it's my place to decide what is and isn't acceptable for anyone else's health.

Even when their health could cause you to pay a higher premium for no reason?

I don't see this as far off from the smoking bans going around.

[Clove]

I have one question:

Would the same penalties apply to unhealthily underweight individuals?

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't honestly believe they cause me to pay that much extra. Insurance is what the market will bear. I believe overweight people and the elderly and women of reproductive age have been made scapegoats for insurance increases. I believe this because the insurance companies all but admitted it when they admitted that women are charged extra for the same insurance, (in other words, their insurance LACKS maternal care), before congress two weeks ago.

I believe it because my dad works for a small business that had two gentlemen in employment over 65, and his coworkers anticipated with great glee how their rates would go down when these two men retired. The two men retired and rates went up, not down.

As long as people are willing to tolerate the divide and conquer excuses insurance gives (fat people, women, the elderly), for added premiums in the face of incredible profits, insurance rates will climb. When people wake up and realize they'll probably need some health care too at some point and put as much effort into protecting each other they do currently into pointing fingers, IMO rates will come down.

[Mabus]

I don't see this as far off from the smoking bans going around.
Neither do I, though I likely disagree with your stance on both issues.

I see it as "nanny state" to tell people what they can smoke, what they can weigh, what they can eat and what they can say.

You seem to believe it is fully within your "rights" to do so, because of a potential harm to you.

Do you jog, hike, rock climb, bike, barbecue, paint your house or any of the (thousands of) other things that may be potentially harmful to you?

If so we should ban them all, because we do not want to take the chance that it could affect any of us.

I support responsible individual liberty.

[Clove]

Even when their health could cause you to pay a higher premium for no reason?

I don't see this as far off from the smoking bans going around.The overweight individual may or may not develop weight-related health issues while they're working/paying into your insurance (for the record I don't believe in raising rates for smokers or drinkers either) that would make coverage more expensive than the average. Then again, they could. Just like your mountain biking on the weekend could result in a broken elbow. Or your genetic predispositions could result in you eventually coming down with an expensive-to-treat health condition.

While it is true that weight is a factor in health it is one of many factors in general health. Along with genetics, exercise, type of diet, stress, lifestyle etc. Obviously there is such a thing as morbidly obese but being simply overweight is not a guarantee of bad health and placing height/weight/age/sex qualifiers on health-care costs is arbitrary and unfair.

Being substantially underweight for prolonged periods can cause serious health risks. Living a sedentary lifestyle also has serious health consequences and simply being "the right weight" is not a guarantee of improved health either. Check out this article on "normal weight obesity"
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2008-rst/4738.html (see excerpt below):


CHICAGO — More than half of American adults considered to have normal body weight in America have high body fat percentages — greater than 20 percent for men and 30 percent for women — as well as heart and metabolic disturbances, new Mayo Clinic research shows. The finding conflicts with the widely held belief that maintaining a normal weight automatically guards against disorders such as high levels of circulating blood fats and a tendency to develop metabolic syndrome, which often leads to type 2 diabetes.

(emphasis added)

An individual's state of fitness and health is complex; simply zeroing in on a few factors that are easy to gather information on and penalizing people who "don't make those cuts" isn't fair in my opinion.

[AestheticDeath]

I have one question:

Would the same penalties apply to unhealthily underweight individuals?

I would agree to that.

[Ignot]

So overweight and underweight? At what point does it end? You could really get crazy with it. Someone spends to much time in the sun, someone spends more time driving then somebody else, someone gets less sleep, someone doesn't take vitamins. There has to be a line in the sand. I was quoting George Costanza with "we are living in a society" but I was half serious. Somethings we are just going to have to accept.

[thefarmer]

So overweight and underweight? At what point does it end? You could really get crazy with it. Someone spends to much time in the sun, someone spends more time driving then somebody else, someone gets less sleep, someone doesn't take vitamins. There has to be a line in the sand. I was quoting George Costanza with "we are living in a society" but I was half serious. Somethings we are just going to have to accept.

There is no end.

What people like AD don't realize when they say things like, "That fat guy should pay more because he costs more" is that given enough qualifiers, EVERYBODY is as 'unhealthy' as that 'fat' guy. My hypothetical questionnaire was only a minuscule portion of what could be done, and would be by insurance companies.

[Latrinsorm]

You're trying to give someone a better living at the cost of my own.This is the fundamental basis of a persistent society. If you want to be "realistic", find a social system that ignores general welfare and avoids bloody uprising, repression, and civil war. You will be looking for a long time.
They pay more because they need more. It is logical.It is intuitive, not logical, and it is crucial to remember that intuition is a fancy word for common sense, which has been empirically demonstrated as the worst possible way to do any sort of science or reasoning. For example, your intuition finds no fault in "need more = pay more", while many other people's find no fault in "live in society = pay for society". This doesn't mean one of you is right and one of you is wrong, it means both of you are using crappy reasoning to arrive at your conclusions.

There really isn't a wide philosophical gulf here. You're advocating for what you think is your personal best interest, but what is actually in your personal best interest is what is in the best interest of our social system. It has been empirically verified that the life of man in anarchy is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Charging "fat" people more for insurance will not result in anarchy, but it has been empirically verified that government using your reasoning will.

[ClydeR]

This medical insurance issue is really coming to the forefront everywhere. RNC Chairman Michael Steele -- who I still think should be fired because of what he said about Rush -- said yesterday that the best way for Republicans to approach the homosexual "marriage" question was to point out that it would cost businesses more to provide medical insurance to the "spouses" of homosexual employees.


SAVANNAH, GA.: Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

''Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,'' Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. ''So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.''

More... (http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/45235302.html)

And before any of you rush in saying that heterosexual marriages would have the same effect as homosexual "marriages" on an employer's insurance costs, let me respond preemptively that you can't prove that.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Neither do I, though I likely disagree with your stance on both issues.

I see it as "nanny state" to tell people what they can smoke, what they can weigh, what they can eat and what they can say.

You seem to believe it is fully within your "rights" to do so, because of a potential harm to you.

Do you jog, hike, rock climb, bike, barbecue, paint your house or any of the (thousands of) other things that may be potentially harmful to you?

If so we should ban them all, because we do not want to take the chance that it could affect any of us.

I support responsible individual liberty.

:yeahthat:

Call the newspapers!

[AestheticDeath]

What exactly are you guys arguing against here? Penalties for fat people, or rewards for healthy people? Or both?

Do you think no lines should be drawn?

[thefarmer]

What exactly are you guys arguing against here? Penalties for fat people, or rewards for healthy people? Or both?

Do you think no lines should be drawn?

Which guys?

[CrystalTears]

Which guys?
Everyone but him.

[Tisket]

PETA would like to charge meat-eaters higher insurance rates because they are more susceptible to illness than vegetarians. Where does the madness stop?!! I like my beef...

http://timesargus.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120352/1002/NEWS01)

[CrystalTears]

What exactly are you guys arguing against here? Penalties for fat people, or rewards for healthy people? Or both?

Do you think no lines should be drawn?
Not your arbitrary lines, no.

[Some Rogue]

I like my beef...



:devilsmile:

[Clove]

I like my beef...
http://www.nicegraphics.com/chow/Mannys/RoastBeef.jpg